Scurvy is very rare disease in industrialized societies. Nevertheless, it still exists in higher risk groups including economically disadvantaged populations with poor nutrition, such as the elderly and chronic alcoholics. The incidence of scurvy in the pediatric population is very low. This study reports a case of scurvy in a 5-year-old girl with cerebral palsy and developmental delay based on MRI findings.

If you think the incidence of scurvy in the pediatric population is so "very low" take a look at the work of Dr. C.A.B. Clemetson, MD and Dr.Archie Kalokerinos, MD in relation to "accelerated infantile scurvy-endotoxemia" and it possible emergence as "classical" Shaken Baby Syndrome. newbielink:http://truthquest2.com/johnlaverty/index.htm [nonactive]

It appear to me that the shaken baby syndrome is recently given name for a few decades ago unknown and at the present misunderstood medical condition that mostly affect children of age from tree months to one years. It seems that incidence of “Baby Shaken Syndrome” have increased in recent decades.

First of all, there is never been reported witnessed injury and accusing the parents or caregiver for this kind of medical condition is highly questionable.

In case of “Baby Shaken Syndrome” the parents-care giver are accused of physically inflecting negative medical condition and in

In case of “Scurvy” the parents – care giver are accused of negligence.

In case that is caused by vaccination the blame is to vaccination.

In all tree case it shows that today the humans can’t afford to admit limitation of own knowledge and that is obstacle to any progress in understanding of cause and prevention of negative medical condition.

The Baby Shaken Syndrome can be very interesting topic and I suggest, start the new topic in New Theories tread.

In this topic present strong evidence that shows that;

1. On recorded history from the sea about scurvy incidence, there is no rational ground to accept theory about cause and prevention of the scurvy

2. There is no rational ground to accept theory about cause and prevention of the scurvy based on Lind’s trial.

3. There is no rational ground to accept theory that guinea pig is not able to synthesize the vitamin C.

I presented strong evidence that support my theory. On the other side on this topic no one present any evidence that contradict to my theory.

You don't seem to have read the same thread as I have.The one I read showed that1 There is a documented mechanism by which lack of vitamin C leads (through a failure to synthesise hydroxyproline) to a failure of the connective tissues in the body and so to scurvy.

2 That people are occasionally still found to have scurvy; these people can be treated and cured by administration of vitamin C.It didn't say anything particularly favourable about Lind's work or the sea but that reflects the fact that by the time people were doing proper clinical trials scurvy was much less of a problem because proper food had largely solved the problem.

As far as I recall your theory said something about scurvy being due to the motion of the sea. Well the sea still has just as many waves as it ever had, but the incidence of scurvy is much reduced.You never yet managed to explain how guinea pigs (not known for nautical tendencies) manage to get scurvy (and, they do as indicated by the website I cited even if you don't choose to believe it).

I fail to see any evidence for your ideas and I see ample evidence refuting it.

1. On recorded history from the sea about scurvy incidence, there is no rational ground to accept theory about cause and prevention of the scurvy

2. There is no rational ground to accept theory about cause and prevention of the scurvy based on Lind’s trial.

3. There is no rational ground to accept theory that guinea pig is not able to synthesize the vitamin C.

I presented strong evidence that support my theory. On the other side on this topic no one present any evidence that contradict to my theory.

I want to try to understand your statement here before I can make any claim one way or another. Are you simply suggesting that based on records of voyages at sea pre-19th or 20th century and James Lind's 'trial' that there is no definitive causal factor for the development, treatment or prevention of scurvy? If so, then I agree.

But how many people knew what Beriberi was in 1792? or Rickets? or Pellagra? Just because we didn't know what it was then, doesn't mean that we're not right now. As boredchemist stated, we have plausible mechanisms for the development of scurvy in conditions of vitamin C deficiency. How many people have developed scurvy when plasma ascorbic acid levels were adequate?

The facts about experiment on which is based theory that guinea pigs cant synthesise vitamin C.

Quote

In 1902, Axel Holst, a Norwegian professor of bacteriology and hygiene who had been concerned at the appearance of what had been diagnosed as beriberi in the crews of Norwegian sailing ships, seized an opportunity to visit Grijns in Batavia and to see his work on chicken polyneuritis. On his return to Oslo, he attempted to obtain a closer model of "ship-beriberi" by using a mammal as his experimental species, and chose guinea pigs. He fed them grains, either whole or milled, and found that they all died within 30 d. When the carcasses were opened he saw "pronounced hemorrhages" and looseness of the molar teeth. Theodor Frölich, a pediatrician with experience of infantile scurvy, confirmed that the condition appeared to be scurvy with no evidence of any kind of polyneuritis. The two men then found that the condition was not produced by semistarvation, and that it was prevented by giving two traditional antiscorbutics, lemon juice and fresh cabbagehttp://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/4/975

Before any discusion is usefull to remind of some facts about guinea pigs.

Quote

Grass is the guinea pig's natural diet.

Guinea pigs tend to be fickle eaters when it comes to fresh fruits and vegetables, having learned early in life what is and is not appropriate to consume, and their habits are difficult to change after maturity.[

They do not respond well to sudden changes in diet; they may stop eating and starve rather than accepting new food types

A constant supply of hay or other food is generally recommended, as guinea pigs feed continuously and may develop habits such as chewing on their own hair if food is not present

Guinea pigs are prey animals whose survival instinct is to mask pain and signs of illness, and many times health problems may not be apparent until a condition is severe or in its advanced stages.

Treatment of disease is made more difficult by the extreme sensitivity guinea pigs have to most antibiotics, including penicillin, which kill off the intestinal flora and quickly bring on episodes of diarrhea and deathhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_pigs

Taking in account that grass is guinea pigs natural diet and that grains, either whole or milled isnt, shows that feeding the guinea pigs with grains either whole or milled is actually exposing them to starvations to the some extent and in the same time to the some extent of slow poisoning (semi starvation combined with slow poisoning),

They didnt prevent death of guinea pigs by giving them lemon juice by continuing to feed them with grain, either whole or milled.

They didnt prevent death or reverse condition induced by feeding guinea pigs with the grain by continuing the feeding with grain and cabbage because the guinea pig will ignore the grains, either whole or milled and will eat only cabbage because cabbage is guinea pigs natural diet and grain, whole or milled is not..

They prevented (condition) guinea pigs from death by giving them, lemon juice and fresh cabbage.

Taking in account that guinea pigs do not respond well to sudden changes in diet; they may stop eating and starve rather than accepting new food types it is questions how Axel Holst convinced guinea pig to eat grain at all. It is like convince lions to eat broccoli and lemons.

Lion natural diet is meat and if you fed them with broccoli and lemon the lions surly will develop scurvy if he doesnt die before.

This experiment on which is founded theory that gunea pigs cant syntetise vitamin C can be simply described as; with metod of slow poisioning and semi starvation by guinea pig is induced condition that is treated by discontinuing the starvation and slow poisioning and repleaced with natural diet (cabbage) and aded a drop of snake oil (lemon juice).

Healing and remedial property of the lemon juice and citrus in general the humans discovered long time age only in this case the lemons juice is used as snake oil.

I rely didnt expect that is necessary to say anything more about guinea pigs. It is obvious from evidence that theory that guinea pigs cant synthesise vitamin C is unintentionally or intentionally fabricated.

It is obvious that guinea pig used for this experiment died without any symptom of scurvy. It didnt get prickle bones or bleeding gums, or broken bones, or anything also that in these more sane times was necessary to diagnose scurvy.

The evidence shows that the guinea pig after thirty days of starvation/seamy starvation died without any symptoms of scurvy.

The guinea pig isnt diagnosed with scurvy when it was alive because there wasnt any symptom of scurvy.

Guinea pig was dead when she or he was diagnosed with scurvy. How long guinea pig was dead before she/he was diagnosed with scurvy we cant see from to me available evidence.

The theory, which says guinea pigs can't Synthesise vitamin C is not based on guinea pig but on a guinea pig corpse.

Pronounced heamorage and loose molars are signs of scurvy."Theodor Frölich, a pediatrician with experience of infantile scurvy, confirmed that the condition appeared to be scurvy ""the condition was not produced by semistarvation""it was prevented by giving two traditional antiscorbutics"You are right about there being no need to say anything more about guinnea pigs getting scury. They get scurvy- as shown by their symptoims and by expert testimony.These symptoms are relieved by antiscorbutics.

That's pretty much proof that it's scurvy. The fact that guinnea pigs still get the disease today if not properly fed but can be treated by giving a more aproplrate diet proves that it's still true that, like us, guinnea pigs can't produce vitamin C.Now if the "unnatural diet had anything to do with the matter then feeding the things with grain (which, it sems to have escaped your notice, is a grass) shouldn't be a problem- it's part of their normal diet.On the other hand, cabbage leaves and lemon juice certainly are not (both cabbage and lemon are Mediteranean in origin whereas the guinnea pig is from South America)

So your idea that a foriegn diet was responsile for the death of these animakls is not just wrong, its the exact opposite of what the evidence says.They fed them grass (what you say is their normal diet) and they got ill. That fed them cabbage (clearly not their normal diet) and they got better.At best, you have shown that the precise course of the disease in guinnea pigs is different from that in humans- so what?

As for things like this "How long guinea pig was dead before she/he was diagnosed with scurvy we can’t see from to me available evidence. "Well just for a start, we do know something of the answer. It was sufficiently recently dead that you could diagnose bleeding and loose teeth.I grant that we don't know if that's an hour or a day or what but, like the poor creatures name, it doesn't matter.

Many diseases are easiest to diagnose post mortem. It's perfectly normal practice. I can only think you are raising the matter to distract attention from the paucity of the rest of your argument.So, in summary, you say "will eat only cabbage because cabbage is guinea pigs natural diet " in spite of cabbage being from the wrong continent.You say "Lion natural diet is meat and if you fed them with broccoli and lemon the lions surly will develop scurvy if he doesn’t die before." repeatedly inspite of having no evidence.

You say "The evidence shows that the guinea pig after thirty days of starvation/seamy starvation died without any symptoms of scurvy." even though the expert who examined it said it did have scurvy.

And you fail to notice that grains are, in fact, grass.You overlook the fact that people occasionally still get scurvy and it is cured by vitamin C.You overlook the fact that the mechanism of this problem (ie the failure to convert proline to hydroxyproline)is well known.You have yet to answer my comments on your idea that scurvy is somehow related to the waves of the sea. Here's what you said;"Scurvy disappeared on the end of nineteen and beginning of twenty of century, in same time when big, stabile on the water, steam powered ships replaced smaller wind powered ships.

Did scurvy disappeared because of adequate amount of vitamin C in sailors diet or because of introducing steam powered ships that was much bigger in size and because of bigger size they are more stabile on the water."

Scurvy still exists so it hasnt disapeared, not in the 19th C, nor the 20th nor, sadly, in the 21st.Scurvy troubled other populations apart from sailors- notably prisoners (who had a restricted diet with little fruit or fresh green veg) and guinea pigs.Neither of these groups does a lot of sailing.The sea still has just as many waves as it always had, yet the incidence of scurvy has reduced a lot.

You have not even shown the courtesy to comment on VitaminC's comments and the papers they cited showing, explicitly, that guinea pigs get scurvy.

Do you actually have any valid points to make, or are you just spouting the same nonsense repeatedly?

I believe I have provided reasons for all the arguments I have put forward. I have also asked you for reasons for the arguments you have put forward. You have not provided them.

I believe that any damage I do to Naked Science is minor compared to the risk of leaving unevinced guesswork such as yours unanswered.

I'm quite prepared to think- that's why I noticed things like your assertion that cabbage being part of theguinea pig's natural diet is inconsistent with them having evolved on separate continents.

You will lose such credibility as you still have if you continue to fail to answer the questions I have asked. I can't force you to reply- but if you don't, people will assume it is because you cannot find answers. So, here they are again.If vitamin C isn't the cause of scurvy what is?Do you really think it's anything to do with the movement of ships?If so, how do you explain the fact that it happens to people who are not on ships, for example prisoners?If you don't think it's anything to do with ships why did you post that bit in your original post?Why does scurvy clear up when treated with vitamin C?How do you explain the fact that the mechanism of action of vitamin C has been established on a biochemical basis as vitamin C being a cofactor in the conversion of proline to hydroxyproline?

On the subject of being rude, since you raised it, I will repeat my question about why you ignored the data provided by "VitaminC"'s post?

In 1492 Hammocks were first introduced to Europe by Christopher Columbus when he brought many hammocks back to Spain from islands in the present day Bahamas.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammock

Imidietly after Columbus brought the hamocks, they were adopted for use in sailing ships.

The first recorded outbreaks of scurvy happened in the year of 1497 (Vasco Da Gama’s first voyage).

There is no reported incidence of scurvy on Bartolomeu Dias voyage from 1486 - 1488.

It is for sure that the ships of Bartholomew Dias weren’t equipped with hammocks because it happened before hamocks were introduced in Europe.

It seems that Vasco da Gama’s ships where equipped with hammocks because Vasco da Gamma’s first voyage happened five years later after hamocks were introduced in Europe.

(I don’t have any evidence that Wasco de Gama’s ships where equipped with hammocks. I think that after hammocks were brought to Europe they where immediately adopted for use in sailing ships. Where or not Wasco De gama’s ships equped with hamokcs is the question that I couldn’t find the answer.)

Incidences of scurvy in Royal Navy are strongly asociated with hamocks.

Before Hamokcs were adopted for use on ships there is no recorded outbreack of the scurvy in the Royal Navy.

The first reported ourbreack of scurvy the English captain Sir Richard Hawkins is dating around that times.

Quote

The English sea captain Sir Richard Hawkins stated in 1622 that "In 20 years, since that I have used the sea, I dare take upon me to give accompt of 10,000 men consumed with scurvy" emphasizing the magnitude of the problem.http://www.ltdk.helsinki.fi/users/hemila/history/

One more fact is that mainly, if not only, the sailors where afected with scurvy and the oficer wasn’t.

Anyway as was pointed out at some length before.People in jail used to get scurvy; they don't go sailing.Guinea pigs get scurvy- but they don't go sailing.Vitamin C cures scurvy whether people stay on ship or not.The detailed mechanism by which a shortage of vitamin C leads to scurvy is well understood.

You point out that "One more fact is that mainly, if not only, the sailors where affected with scurvy and the officer wasn't."And as has been said before, that's because the officers were better fed.

While we are at it lets have a laugh at your supposed suggestion.

You say it's due to sleeping in hamocks.yet, as you say "(1) Not every voyage is folowed by outbreak of scurvy.

(2) By outbreaks of the scurvy not every sailors was affected with scurvy."Well, since every voyage was accompanied by sailors in hammocks and all the men- not just some of them - slept in hammocks, your own data shows that your idea must be wrong.

Once again I ask do you have anything to contribute or are you just spouting nonsense?(and BTW, your latest website is hilarious.)

So, we wait over a year and you come back. You fail to answer the questions asked and you say this"The first recorded outbreaks of scurvy happened in the year of 1497 (Vasco Da Gama’s first voyage). "

I did wonder why I hadn't spotted this threadbefore then noticed the dates... [] I'm curious to know why the posters decided to take the graveyard shift and resurrect this thread?

For GBSB, Ascorbic acid is required biochemically for a squillion things... but in terms of scurvy its needed as a cofactor ( although not a prosthetic group I believe) with lysyl and prolyl hydroxylase. Both these enzymes are essential in collagen structure. Vit C is the D-enantiomer of ascorbic acid.

Logged

A potty-mouthed, impertinent female who thinks she is God's gift to men" - JimBob

My guess is the GBSB is trying to use this as a springboard for his weird ideas and website.He has already been told many times that the biological role of ascorbic acid is well documented.Reality doesn't seem to trouble him much. Nor does the fact that propper science requires him to answer questions.